However, even doing that, I think I met my own intention. I don't want to be right, correct, or... I don't know, can't think of a third.
I am an arguer. I argue to understand, and to be understood.
This statement is a self-admission of your intent: you like to debate. That's fine, so do I having been a former debater. But you then go on to protest that you don't want to debate, which is disingenuous and an attempt to plant "false information" that someone will naively accept as "truth."
I am pretty curious as to what game it is that you are implying that I am playing?
The game you are playing is that you want your preconceived "truth" to BE "truth" that can be applied to every situation. You made no attempt to qualify your statement. You presented it as an absolute truth that applies to all situations. Then you try to back it up by presenting more psychobabble that is based on manipulation of the data and the situation to achieve the result that was intended.
In fact, my intention wasn't debate - that was your intention by applying disagreement.
Nonsense. You asked: " Thoughts?"
That was a direct invitation to a "debate" using the premise you stated, and by implication since you stated it, that you believe and that it has direct application to denying or questioning the reality of TRUTH.
Your Premise: "The Truth: Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.
In terms of issues presented on these boards, the misinformation effect directly addresses the rewriting of marital history, and the ever changing view of mistakes made."
Rewriting of marital is history is a common occurrence. That's due to the "Fog effect" and attempts by the WS to rationalize and justify their CHOICE to have an affair. But in the real world, not the "pyschobabble world," the FACT is the adultery. The details of the marital situation that led to the affair is a component, but the only truly relevant fact in affairs IS the fact of the affair itself. It either occurred or it didn't occur. IF you want to limit the concept of "misinformation" to the rationalizations used and the justifications drawn from those rationalizations, then I'd say fine. But you didn't limit the applicability of your premise to just an affair situation, you expanded it to be inclusive of ALL situations when you said, "which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable."
That inclusiveness is what is WRONG and why I gave you my own personal experience as a means to "falsify" your statement. It does not hold up in ALL situations, as you stated, and is therefore ONLY applicable to a given specific situation.
So, let's deconstruct, again, what you are saying; in your case you had 3 different witnesses, and photographs.
The photographs, in and of themselves provide current material to work with.
In fact, your entire scenario is not what I presented, at all, in any manner.
This does not deconstruct the theory. Neither does tossing out "slant and bias" nonchalantly without providing evidence, nor specifying said bias or slant. Additionally, this effect being discussed has been confirmed in numerous studies, through varying methods.
What game are you playing at, then?
You can claim "innocence" or simply being "misunderstood," but that is simply YOU deconstructing what you DID say. I don't have to "pull from memory" what you said because you wrote it and I can quote it verbatim.
Again, you made a blanket, all inclusive, statement that you presented as FACT.
I simply showed you that your premise in that statement was false, it is not all inclusive of all situations.
As for your article upon which you based you statement, it's a fine example of psychological manipulation of a situation designed so as to achieve the predetermined result of the author, and then an attempt to apply it to situations where facts ARE known.
I have to, by your stance, assume that you did not read the article linked; I'll go a step further.
You would assume wrongly then.
But to humor you a bit, here is the complete article and I'll even give you some comments and observations about the article: Misinformation Effect
June 3, 2010
tags: Elizabeth Loftus, False Memories
by David McRaneyThe Misconception:
Memories are played back like recordings.The Truth:
Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.
"Have you ever been telling a story about something someone else in the room also experienced?
If so, have you ever disagreed on what happened? If you can�t both be right, what does that mean?
Take out a piece of paper and get ready to write.
Really do it; it will be fun.
Now, read this list of words out loud one time and then try to write as many of them as you can remember on the paper without looking back. When you think you have them all, look back.
Don�t read past the block of words until you�ve finished.
Go:door, glass, pane, shade, ledge, sill, house, open, curtain, frame, view, breeze, sash, screen, shutter
Now, take a look at the list. How did you do?
Did you write down all the words?
Did you write the word window
If presented properly, 85 percent of people will remember seeing window
in the list, but it isn�t there.
If you did, you just gave yourself a false memory thanks to the misinformation effect.
In 1974, Elizabeth Loftus at the University of Washington conducted a study in which people watched safety films of car crashes.
She then asked the participants to estimate how fast the car was going, but she divided the people into groups and asked the question differently for each. These were the questions:
� About how fast were the cars going when they smashed
into each other?
� About how fast were the cars going when they collided
into each other?
� About how fast were the cars going when they bumped
into each other?
� About how fast were the cars going when they hit
� About how fast were the cars going when they contacted
The people�s answers in mph averaged like this:
� Smashed � 40.8
� Collided � 39.3
� Bumped � 38.1
� Hit � 34.0
� Contacted � 31.8
She raised the ante by asking the same people if they saw broken glass in the film. There was no broken glass.
Sure enough, the people who were given the word smashed in their question were twice as likely to remember seeing glass, and people from every group falsely remembered seeing it.
Since then, hundreds of experiments into misinformation effect have been conducted, and people have been convinced of all sorts of things. Screwdrivers become wrenches, white men become black men, etc.
Studies show you can become convinced you were lost in a shopping mall as a child even though you never were.
Loftus even convinced people they shook hands with Bugs Bunny when they visited Disney World as a kid.
There are many explanations as to why this is happening, but the effect is well established and predictable.
Scientists generally agree memories aren�t recorded like videos or stored like data on a hard drive. They are constructed and assembled on the spot like Legos from a bucket in your brain.
Neurologist Oliver Sacks once had a patient who became colorblind after a brain injury. Not only could he not see certain colors, he couldn�t imagine them or remember them. Memories of cars and dresses and carnivals were suddenly drained, washed down. (You can read more about his research in his book, �The Island of the Colorblind.�)
Even though this patient�s memories were first imprinted when he could see color, they now could only be conjured up with the faculties of his current imagination.
Each time you build a memory, you make it from scratch, and if much time has passed you stand a good chance of getting the details wrong. With a little influence, you might get big ones wrong.
Loftus has rallied against eyewitness testimony for decades now, and she also has criticized psychologists who say they can dredge up repressed memories from childhood.
Think back to the exercise above when you falsely saw curtains in the list of things around a window. It took almost no effort to implant the memory.
Wait, was it curtains?"
Manipulation to achieve the desired result. CAN someone be "Implanted" with false information that they will believe was real? Of course they can. That isn't the issue. The issue is "what" truth is being examined.
There is a list of words, how many does someone remember. Some will remember all of them, some a few, and some may even "add" something to the list. So what.
The Cars collided. That is the fact. How fast the cars were going depends on other facts NOT readily available. What they remember about the crash is irrelevant to how accurate they "estimated" the cars were traveling prior to the collision. They were given a changed scenario where words used were designed to alter the "fact" of the speed that might generally result is the "degree" of the impact of the cars. But if you gave the same "Test" to someone who is trained in this sort of observation, like my son who is a cop and has "estimated" speed very accurately and confirmed that speed with radar, they will likely "score" much higher on the "eyewitness" scale.
Again, even if I wanted to agree that people's perceptions can vary, and I would agree to that, the CONCLUSION drawn that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable in ALL situations
" is an incorrect conclusion. Even in the scenarios cited, not ALL eyewitnesses got that information wrong. SOME actually, even given the intentional manipulation by the tester, got the information (their memory of what actually happened) correct, but the article focused on the ones who "missed" or "added" information and you have attempted to extrapolate that to ALL situations. The article itself proved that contention is false.
While I doubt you have the desire to read a single one of those, what I want to put on the table here, is this is the deconstruction of a base psychological bias in and of itself. It's not some "new aged" idea, it's been known and studied for decades, and is, in fact, employed by advertisers and politicians.
My "game" is discussion, not debate.
You are correct in one assumption, I have no desire to spend my time reading articles for your enjoyment when I already know your premise of applicability to ALL situations is false.
A premise that has merit in the context of your statement is that "if you tell a lie often enough, it will become the truth." Big deal. It's still a lie.
And the Emperor HAS no clothes too. That is the truth.
Here's another one: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Last point regarding the article: "Even though this patient�s memories were first imprinted when he could see color, they now could only be conjured up with the faculties of his current imagination.
Duh! The condition was changed by BRAIN DAMAGE. The capacity of the brain was altered by the brain injury. To conclude that has some support for the premise is both illogical and false. His "memories" of color may still be there, but is ability to access those memories was evidently destroyed. Just like the data on your hard drive is inaccessible if you don't have a fully functional computer that has the capacity TO access the stored data. Just as the patient might have to be "re-taught" colors for future observation and classifications of new memories post brain injury, you might have to get a new computer to access what's stored on your harddrive. But for now, we can't get a new brain to replace the damaged areas of the patient's brain.
And with that, I've spent enough time on a senseless "rabbit trail."
Good luck in your discussion.